The story from Vermont, of all places, is breathtakingly simple: the elected city council, in a bi-partisan vote, has decided to keep its law-making process secret, rather than openly address the question of whether a draconian no-trespass law it passed last winter is patently unconstitutional.

How can a city council hide behind client-attorney privileges on a legal opinion justifying a public ordinance? Even the Bush Administration felt obligated to release its legal reasonings about its policies. I can't see how this stands up in court.

/never mind going to court to settle the constitutionality of the ordinance itself//politicians really seem to hate the first amendment

It could be worse. Northampton had a regular policy to sweep up transients and then drop them off in neighboring Holyoke, because no one wanted the dirty hobos and junkies on the streets, nor did they want to use up their shelter space or to waste perfectly good rehab slots for homeless folks, as opposed to the folks with jobs. That was decided without a city council vote, and simply enacted by the local police as simple policy. It worked out great for statistics, because the folks that they dumped over the town line never showed up on their rolls, save as transport costs, and the police made it sound like they were helping people to their homes, despite great inconvenience to the force.

Yeah, the Northampton cops are a just sweethearts like that...

/in fairness, when I bounced there were some good cops I worked with, but there is still a lot of weird politics for such a "progressive" town...

Burlington city attorney Eileen Blackwood argues, according to Seven Days, that her office's legal analysis is protected by attorney-client privilege, in a construct where both the attorney and the "client" work for the City of Burlington. Protected by privilege, she has asserted, the legal analysis "must thus be treated as confidential."

IamTomJoad:Shakin_Haitian: balloot: Don't challenge the hobo lobby. They are masters at getting small donations - just like Obama!

You'd love this webcomic.

That...that....I don't even have the words to discribe the amount of vitriol it must take on a daily basis to produce such a "web comic"

It like Farva yelling "CHICKEN FARKER" and being oblivious as to why its neither clever nor funny.

The comments section made a part of my hope for humanity shrivel up and die.

Oh c'mon. For crying out loud, how bad could the comments at Hope n' Change comic's shiattyblogsite be?

*click*

1 - 17 of 17

George in Houtx said...

Stilt, drinking or not, ye done good! pretty much everyone who is not a raving lib or environut will agree that ANY governmental plan to control the weather is really about CONTROL. as for the difference in crowd sizes ..... 1)Obama has had over 4 years to show people what he is REALLY about. 2)last time there was free beer and a local band for entertainment 3)by now, Obama is acting too much like another politician from Germany's past.

Portland used to have an "exclusion zone" in Old Town. People caught dealing drugs or hooking would be issued a notice that they'd be arrested if they so much as set foot in the area. Of course they had to be arrested first. Even then the constitutionality was questioned. Looks like this one doesn't even require an arrest. Good luck with that, Vermont.

hubiestubert:It could be worse. Northampton had a regular policy to sweep up transients and then drop them off in neighboring Holyoke, because no one wanted the dirty hobos and junkies on the streets, nor did they want to use up their shelter space or to waste perfectly good rehab slots for homeless folks, as opposed to the folks with jobs. That was decided without a city council vote, and simply enacted by the local police as simple policy. It worked out great for statistics, because the folks that they dumped over the town line never showed up on their rolls, save as transport costs, and the police made it sound like they were helping people to their homes, despite great inconvenience to the force.

^THIS

Many rural police departments "assist" the homeless/poor/transient to the nearest homeless shelter... which is normally in the larger city and out of their jurisdiction.

thrgd456:Basically they want to trespass people (potentially homeless people) from a certain area of town.

That's what's bad about this law.

thrgd456:You of course realize that there are vagrancy laws in many many many municipalities across the nation.

And vagrancy laws are largely bad laws, and often unenforceable and unconstitutional. They've been a tool for cities to abuse those least able to use the process of government. After the Civil War, they were one of the many manylaws built to enshrine racism. Cities are free to make certain behaviors illegal- loitering, panhandling, prostitution, etc. They cannot make people illegal, or deny citizens access to public places.

But that's not the worst part about this law- the worst part is that the city is claiming they don't need to explain the law or the reasoning used to create it.

If the city council works for the citizens, and the lawyer works for the city council, than doesn't that mean that the lawyer works for the citizens, who would have just as much privilege to see the documents?

Second, if the lawyer works for the city council, why can't the 5 city council members waive their individual privilege and release their copies of the analysis?

If the city council works for the citizens, and the lawyer works for the city council, than doesn't that mean that the lawyer works for the citizens, who would have just as much privilege to see the documents?

No. Sue the company you work for and see if that reasoning works for you. The City Council as a body has the ability to receive legal advice. Governing bodies often go into executive sessions to discuss actions with the advice of legal counsel..

Second, if the lawyer works for the city council, why can't the 5 city council members waive their individual privilege and release their copies of the analysis?

They don't have any individual privilege. Once they are in executive session, they would be breaching the rights of the council and all other members to unilaterally disclose it. Highly unethical and possibly illegal depending on the topic.

Most likely this law will just give police discretion. "Either I arrest you for prostitution/panhandling/public intoxication or you just agree not to come over here." This is done on private property all the time. As long as the area the council has created is defined, it will be fine. Cities have public places (e.g. libraries, museums, zoos, etc) that they will create hours and trespass nuisance offenders. Yes, you can be banned from the public library on penalty of arrest if you create a nuisance or disturbance. This is no different as long as the area is defined.

tbeatty:Cities have public places (e.g. libraries, museums, zoos, etc) that they will create hours and trespass nuisance offenders. Yes, you can be banned from the public library on penalty of arrest if you create a nuisance or disturbance. This is no different as long as the area is defined.

I think there's a significant difference between a library and a street. I can completely understand why someone would be banned from a library/stadium/city hall/etc even though it's "public." Banning someone from walking down a specific street, on the other hand, requires a rather hard sell for me.

JPINFV:tbeatty: Cities have public places (e.g. libraries, museums, zoos, etc) that they will create hours and trespass nuisance offenders. Yes, you can be banned from the public library on penalty of arrest if you create a nuisance or disturbance. This is no different as long as the area is defined.

I think there's a significant difference between a library and a street. I can completely understand why someone would be banned from a library/stadium/city hall/etc even though it's "public." Banning someone from walking down a specific street, on the other hand, requires a rather hard sell for me.

It's the same reasons. Disorderly conduct. It's the behavior that is not permitted and if a person continues that behavior in a venue that the lawmakers representing the people deem disruptive to whatever activity they are protecting, they can create trespassing ordinances. Why do you make a distinction between a street and any other public venue if it's the behavior that causes the trespass?

thrgd456: Basically they want to trespass people (potentially homeless people) from a certain area of town.

That's what's bad about this law.

thrgd456: You of course realize that there are vagrancy laws in many many many municipalities across the nation.

And vagrancy laws are largely bad laws, and often unenforceable and unconstitutional. They've been a tool for cities to abuse those least able to use the process of government. After the Civil War, they were one of the many manylaws built to enshrine racism. Cities are free to make certain behaviors illegal- loitering, panhandling, prostitution, etc. They cannot make people illegal, or deny citizens access to public places.

But that's not the worst part about this law- the worst part is that the city is claiming they don't need to explain the law or the reasoning used to create it.

Actually, generally panhandling is considered protected speech under the first amendment. So a further reason this law may be unconstitutional.